Nouns. In and of themselves
nouns are not difficult to understand. What is difficult, however,
is trying to make sense of case endings—not necessarily what case a noun
is, but why. Other complications arise when verbs are turned into
nouns (gerunds) or when, as often happens, clauses
take on the duties of nouns.

In this section the concept of the noun is gradually expanded from an
individual element (person, place, thing) within a sentence, to a sentence
as a whole.

The case of a noun determines its grammatical relationship to other
nouns, or other elements of a sentence. You are familiar with the
common meanings of the various cases:

nominative: subject

genitive: possession

dative: indirect object

accusative: direct object

ablative: means or instrument

Yet as you have learned, the genitive, dative, accusative, and ablative
cases have many other meanings, which seem at times to overlap. Still,
each of these has a primary meaning:

genitive: source

dative: reference

accusative: endpoint of action

ablative: where, from where, or how

Most of the technical terms for case usage (e.g. objective genitive) are
simply terms of convenience. That is, the function of a case, whatever
a grammar might call it, can usually be understood as evolving from these
primary meanings.

Some of the more notable case uses in Cicero's First Catilinarian
are detailed below.

The primary meaning of the genitive is source, which means that
in one way or another, a noun in this case inspires or causes—is the source
of—some other noun or action. This small concept is easily understood
in the following uses of the genitive:

[blank]Here the multitude is a source of rousing.
That is, they are prone to be stirred up by demagoguery.

This use of the genitive is called objective because the
verbal idea of concitatio governs multitudinis just as a
verb governs an accusative direct object. It is as if Cicero had
written: "I don't know how he rouses the multitude"—i.e. how they
are the object of his influence.

cum Vestalem eam legisset perpetua virginitate spempartus
adimit. (Livy, AUC 1.3.11)He took away the hope of offspring by means of
perpetual virginity, since he had selected her (as) a Vestal.

volgatior fama est ludibriofratris
Remum novos transiluisse muros. (Livy, AUC 1.7.2)The more common story is that Remus leapt over the new
walls in mockery of his brother.

adnisurus pro se quisque sit ut...parentium
etiam patriaeque expleat
desiderium.
(Livy, AUC 1.9.15)(Romulus said that) each one would work as best he could
(pro se) with the result that he would satisfy the desire for
parents and fatherland.

[blank]Here animi and corporis are the sources
of labor, while istius (that man) is a source of power.

This usage differs from the objective
genitive in that the genitives are perceived as the subjects of the
implied actions (laboribus and vis); mind and body
are performing labors, while that man is exercising his power. In the example
for the objective genitive, someone is rousing
the multitude (concitatiomultitudinis), not the other way
around.

Datives usually indicate reference or interest;
that is, they show the impact of a verb on a noun, but the impact is of
secondary concern to the sentence. The action is more important;
its effect or cause, expressed by the dative, is in some way less important.

blankWe have a simple fact: nihil agreste (aut) inhumanum
est, nothing rough or ignoble exists. The dative animo
is the reference point for this fact: with reference to the
mind.

The idea of possession, which you are used to thinking
is genitive, is in this case a variation on reference: there
is nothing rough or ignoble to the mind, therefore the mind possesses none
of these things.

[blank]deesse, to be lacking or to fail, is from de
+ esse. It is a linking verb, and requires dative referents
to indicate to whom or to what a thing is lacking.

The idea of possession is best perceived by substituting
non
for de: dabo operam, ne mea valetudo tuo labori non sit,
I'll take care that my well-being not be not present for your effort—i.e.
that your effort have my well-being.

[blank]parcere (to be sparing) describes Tiro's desired
state of being. Since a state of being is technically not an action,
the verb has no accusative direct object. Rather, it is used in conjunction
with a dative noun, in this case sumptu, which is the reference
point of Tiro's sparing.

Likewise the verb servire (to be a slave), which
has as its referent the dative corpori.

Objective datives are sometimes called datives of direct
object, because they function as accusative direct objects.

blankThe so-called double dative construction combines the
dative
of purpose with a second dative, which expresses the primary meaning
of reference (in fact, it is called the dative of reference).

In the above examples, you understand that voluptati
and curae are the datives of purpose,
the ends in view. ei and tibi, then, are the people
to whom these purposes are referred. In this sense, these
datives are basically possessive.

The accusative case indicates the endpoint
of action. In theory, every action has a direct impact on somebody
or something; the person or thing that receives the impact is put
into the accusative case.

[blank]The accusative of exclamation generates the smallest
possible Latin sentence. When a speaker or author wishes to draw
attention to something, he or she places that thing in the accusative case—without
a verb, almost as if he or she were too agitated to include one.

It helps, perhaps, to understand a verb, e.g. Look at
wretched me, or Consider wretched me). But the essential message
of the accusative of exclamation is, This noun is the endpoint of
my attention, and it should be yours as well.

apud Appuleium...in dies, ut excuser, videbis.
(Cicero, AA 12.15)You will see to it that I am excused to Appuleius daily.

[blank]The accusative of duration (or
extent) of time indicates how long an action occurs. That is, it
describes the endpoint of an action in time.

In the first sentence, dies and noctes describes
the periods of time in which Cicero is worn away. The extent of time
is vast—all day and all night. (The plurals simply indicate that
it happens day after day and night after night.)

The second sentence is somewhat anomalous because the
preposition in precedes dies, which in theory could stand
alone. The expression in dies is idiomatic, but the sense
is clear: Please excuse me to Appuleius, all day, every day.

The ablative is perhaps the most multifaceted
of the Latin cases, with a broad array of uses and meanings. Determining
a primary meaning is therefore difficult, but remembering
where,
from
where, or how as the main idea of the ablative will get you
far.

blankThe verb carere, to lack, contains an inherent
idea of separation, which in turn invokes the ablative. colloquio
and loco are therefore the things from which Cicero is separated.
This is the rule with carere: it takes not an accusative direct
object, but an ablative of separation.

blankThe ablative of comparision contains a separative
/ from where idea. If we say, for example, that X is better
than Y, we are really saying that X is separated
from Y in terms of goodness (good being the positive form of better).

In the example above, Cicero says that nothing
is friendlier than—separated from—solitude.

(haec) si..."fato facta" putarem, ferrem paulo
facilius. (Cicero, AF 14.1.1)If I thought these things had been "accomplished by fate,"
I would endure them a little more easily. (Lit., more easily
by
a little.)

intellego, quanto...fuerit facilius manere
domi quam redire. (Cicero, AF 14.1.2)I understand how much more easy it was to remain
at home than to come back. (Lit., that it was easier by how much.)

quanto me felicior Daphne uicina. (Apuleius, AA
9.5.18-19)

blankThe ablative of degree of difference catches the primary
ablative meanings from where and how
at once.

On the how side, the adjectives paulo and
quanto
modify (in an adverbial sense) the comparatives facilius, defining
how
each situation is easier.

On the from where side, paulo and quanto
distinguish or separate the idea of more easily
/ easier from other ideas of the same. That is, to say that something
is faciliuspaulo, more easy by a little, implies that there
is also (say) something more easy by much (multo) or by nothing
(nihilo).

quae sit istius vis hoc tempore..., ignoro.
(Cicero, AF 14.13)I don't know what his power is at this time.

blankThe reason why Latin often puts words of time in the
ablative is directly related to the primary meaning of this case.
You know that the ablative can mean where; from where
it is a small conceptual jump to when, which is nothing more than
a location in time.

sunt qui Larentiam, volgato corpore, lupam
inter pastores vocatam (esse) putent. (Livy, AUC 1.4.7)There are those who think that Larentia was called a
"lupa" among the sheperds, since her body had been made public (since
she made her body public).

blankThe term absolute is from the Latin absolutus,
which means disconnected. Accordingly, an absolute construction is
gramatically and syntactically separate from the main clause.

The reason why Latin requires absolutes in the ablative
is because such constructions usually define when the main clause happens,
as also happens in ablative constructions of time.

Sometimes an ablative absolute defines the circumstances
in which the main clause occurs, and so taps into the primary ablative
meaning of how.

Technically speaking, then, ablative absolutes function
as adverb clauses, which sometimes
describe how or when main clauses occur.

In the above example, Livy offers the circumstances in
which or reason why Larentia was called a lupa. He might have
used a cum clause: cum
corpus volgavisset (since she had made her body public). The
ablative absolute, however, does much the same thing, and in fewer words.

crescente in dies grege iuvenum, seria
ac iocos celebrare. (Livy, AUC 1.4.9)While the crowd of youths
was growing day
by day, they experienced both serious things and jokes.

signoque dato iuventus Romana ad rapiendas
virgines discurrit. (Livy, AUC 1.9.10)And when the signal was given, the Roman youth
ran here and there for the purpose of stealing the maidens.

ferunt, multis suscitantibus cuinam eam ferrent,
...Thalassio ferri clamitatum esse. (Livy AUC
1.9.12)They say that, when many asked to whom they were
carrying her, it was shouted that (she) was being carried to Thalassius.

Gerunds are verbal nouns; that is, they
are nouns, formed from the present stems of verbs, which represent the
verb as a singular action. They are translated as [verb]-ing,
whatever the verb happens to be. Note that the action is in the active,
not the passive, voice.

Like all nouns, gerunds have case, number, and
gender, and can be taken as direct objects, indirect objects, and so on.
Yet they retain verbal properties, and can govern other nouns or introduce
subordinate clauses just as verbs do.

As you can see, there are no nominative gerunds.
To express the idea of loving in the nominative, we use the infinitive,
for example:

amare est vivere. To love is to live (or,
Loving is living).

NOTE: gerunds exist only in the second
declension, only in the singular, and only in the neuter. If you
see what looks to be a feminine or masculine gerund, or a gerund in the
plural, then you are doubtless looking at a gerundive
instead.

There is little space to go into the usage of
the gerund here; nor have we yet encountered any gerunds in our readings.

Until we do, however, bear in mind once more that gerunds
are nouns. They are used very simply, often in prepositional phrases.
Some examples:

vivit amandi causa. She lives
for the sake of loving.

se amando dat. He gives
himself to loving.

amandum amat. He loves
loving.

amando vivit. She lives
by
means of loving.

[blank]Problems arise when gerunds, in their verbal capacity,
take direct objects. We could for instance, modify our last example
thus:

amando libros vivit. She
lives by means of loving books.

[blank]In this case amando governs libros as its
object. In practice, however, such constructions are rare.
Rather than gerund + noun, the Romans favored noun + gerundive.
See the section on the basic usage of
gerundives
for an explanation of the difference between these constructions.

The concept is actually very simple. In
class we have stressed sentence structure—main clauses and subordinate
clauses. It is the subordinate clauses that are noun
clauses, governed by main clauses just as nouns are governed by other
verbs.